Well, let's unpack this. We are diving deep into
the life, the work, and the really astonishing
influence of Mary Cassatt, an artist who started
as this upper -class American rebel and became
just an absolute key figure in French Impressionism.
She was, I think, without question, the greatest
visual chronicler of the new woman. Of the late
19th century. It's still just a phenomenal story.
I mean, just think about the sheer obstacles
she had to overcome. You've got this American
woman born in Pennsylvania, right? Moves to Paris,
which is the absolute center of the art world.
The epicenter, yeah. And she doesn't just get
accepted. She gets singled out by critics. One
of the three great ladies, L 'Etoile Grande Dame
of Impressionism. Alongside Berthe Morceau and
Marie Brachemont. Exactly. I mean, that just
doesn't happen without incredible talent and,
frankly, just sheer willpower. So our source
material for this deep dive, it's a fantastic
stack of biographies, critical perspectives.
They really map out her path beautifully. We're
looking at her technical skill, that really important,
sometimes stormy partnership she had with Edgar
Degas. Oh, yeah. Crucially, how she basically
became the main person, the evangelist, who brought
impressionism to American collectors. You still
see the legacy of that today, don't you? Like
in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Completely.
And what's so fascinating, I think, is her subject
matter. These intimate, unvarnished pictures
of women's lives, social and private. Especially
the mother and child bond. Right. And it was
quietly radical, wasn't it? Because of her perspective.
Totally. It was the female gaze turned onto the
domestic world. Yeah. that male artists well
they either couldn't get access to or maybe just
didn't think were important enough elevating
the everyday exactly so our mission today really
is twofold first how did this ambitious kind
of unconventional woman get that knowledge get
that influence in a world basically set up to
stop her and second why was her specific viewpoint
her unique perspective so absolutely essential
in moving art you know out of that old academic
tradition and into modernity Okay, let's start
at the beginning then. Allegheny, Pennsylvania,
1844. Mary Stevenson Cassatt is born. And this
wasn't just any family. No, definitely not. Serious
means high expectations. Upper middle class.
Right. Her father, Robert Simpson Cassatt, he
was a successful stockbroker, land speculator.
The family name was actually Cassart originally,
French Huguenots. Oh, interesting. Yeah. Came
over to New Amsterdam way back in 1662. And her
mother, Catherine Kelso Johnston, she was from
a big banking family too. And importantly, really
well educated, well read. And the mother seems
key here. Didn't Cassatt's friend, Louisine Havemeyer,
say something about that? She did. Havemeyer
basically argued that if you knew Catherine,
you knew Mary got her brains, her capacity from
her and her alone. Strong influence there. It's
a strong intellectual foundation and then massive
exposure to the world. Huge exposure. The Cassatts
really believed travel was crucial for a good
education. So Mary spent, what, five years in
Europe as a child? Five years. Wow. Yeah. Learned
German, French, got her first drawing and music
lessons over there. Here's a little connection,
maybe. It's actually pretty likely she first
saw work by artists like Ingra, and crucially,
her future mentors, Degas and Pizarro, at the
big Paris World's Fair in 1855. So the seeds
were planted very early on. Seems like it. Okay,
so she's got the foundation, she's seen Europe,
but then she decides, I want to be a professional
artist. And the family... Oh, they staged basically
a full scale intervention. Total objection. Really?
Yeah. She started studying at the Pennsylvania
Academy of the Fine Arts P .M. when she was just
15 back in 1859. Her parents were seriously worried
about, you know, feminist ideas. And what seems
funny now, the bohemian behavior of the male
students. Art was fine as a hobby for a lady,
you know, not a career. That kind of anxiety
must have just fueled her determination, though.
You think so, right? Seems it did. Cassatt was
determined. Even then, she and her friends were
apparently fierce advocates for equal rights.
Lifelong thing for her. But the training itself
at PFA, she wasn't impressed. Not at all. She
found it frustrating, useless ultimately, studied
there till 65, but later just dismissed it. Famously
said there was no teaching. Just flat out. So
what was so bad about it? What were the specific
problems for women students then? Well, the restrictions
were just severe. And purely based on gender.
Female students couldn't use live models, not
early on anyway. Seriously, what did they do
instead? Plaster casts. Hours and hours drawing
from casts of old statues. The whole atmosphere
was apparently patronizing, slow. So that impatience
with the system, that must have started right
there. Absolutely. Seeing firsthand how the institution
held her back just because she was a woman. That
directly feeds into her later embrace of impressionism,
her rejection of the whole academic structure.
She learned early on that institutional approval
wasn't the goal. It was maybe even flawed. Which
makes her decision to go to Paris almost inevitable,
doesn't it? It really does. That dissatisfaction
just built up. So 1866, she finally overcomes
her father's objections, moves to Paris. The
art capital. But not on her own. Had to have
chaperones. Because remember, women couldn't
just waltz into the École des Beaux -Arts, the
main art school. So how did she study? Private
lessons. She studied with established academic
masters like Jean -Leon Jerome. Known for that
super realistic, almost photographic style, right?
Exactly. Hyper realism. And also Thomas Couture,
who did more romantic urban scenes. So she's
learning the establishment techniques. while
kind of getting ready to reject their whole philosophy.
Pretty much. And the real key to her development,
arguably, wasn't even in those studios. It was
in the Louvre. Helping the masters. Hours and
hours just copying the greats. It was critical
for her technique, but it was also, interestingly,
a social thing. Also. Well, the Louvre became
this sort of acceptable social space for American
women art students. They couldn't hang out in
the avant garde cafes where all the male artists
were arguing and networking. Right. So they met
and connected with each other, like Elizabeth
Jane Gardner, while copying paintings. And she
actually found some success within that system.
the salon system, even while starting to resent
it. She did, for a bit. 1868, her painting, a
mandolin player done in that acceptable romantic
style, gets accepted by the Paris Salon Jury.
Which is a big deal. Huge deal. Made her one
of the first two American women to exhibit there
that year. She kept submitting for about 10 years,
trying to walk that line between her ambition
and the establishment's rules. But getting more
frustrated. Definitely. The whole French art
scene was shifting dramatically. She called it
chaos. as artists started rejecting the old academic
traditions, her frustration was building. And
then came this major interruption. The Franco
-Prussian War sends her back to the U .S. in
1870. And this sounds like a real low point for
her. Altoona, Pennsylvania. Oh, it was a crisis
point. A humiliating step back. Her family paid
for her basic needs, food and shelter, sure,
but her father, point blank, refused to pay for
art supplies. No way. Yeah. No studio costs,
no paints. She tried desperately to sell her
work in New York, couldn't do it, and then disaster
strikes. The Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Wiped
out a bunch of her early work that was stored
there. She was apparently so devastated she seriously
thought about just giving up art entirely. Wow.
Yeah, find some other way to make a living, be
independent. She wrote this despairing letter
saying she'd given up my studio and torn up my
father's portrait and have not touched a brush
for six weeks nor ever will again until I see
some prospect of getting back to Europe. That's
bleak. But thankfully that prospect did arrive.
And it gave her back her independence, financially
speaking. Ah, it did, yeah. A commission came
through from the Bishop of Pittsburgh, Michael
Dominick. A bishop. Yep. Hired her to go to Parma,
Italy, and copy paintings by Correggio. It wasn't
a fortune, but it was enough. Enough money and
enough excitement about returning to Europe to
just reignite everything. And that's when she
wrote that amazing line. Oh, yeah. Oh, how wild
I am to get to work. My fingers fairly itch and
my eyes water to see a fine picture again. You
feel that hunger, right? Totally. That raw need.
And that propelled her back. Yeah. Back to Europe
in 1871, ready to really make her mark. Okay,
so Cassatt returns to Europe. Act two begins.
And she's still having some success with the
salon, but she's deeply cynical about it now.
Completely cynical. And her critique was really
rooted in her experience as a woman in that system.
She was brutally honest about the politics. What
did she say? She pointed out that, you know,
works by women artists were often just dismissed
unless the artist had a friend or protector on
the jury. Nepotism, basically. Pretty much. And
she refused to play those games, wouldn't flirt,
wouldn't try to curry favor to get ahead. That
kind of integrity, well, it meant rejection was
almost guaranteed eventually. Again, 1877. Yep.
Both her submissions to the salon that year,
rejected, left her at this really critical low
point. Perfect timing, in retrospect, because
right then she gets the invitation. The invitation.
Edgar Degas asks her to exhibit with the Impressionists.
Faith. It really feels like it. Cassatt already
knew Degas' work, his pastels especially. She'd
seen them in 1875 and said, it changed my life.
I saw art then as I wanted to see it. Wow. So
she accepted immediately, jumped right in, joined
their despairing fight, as she put it. So the
Salon's rejection basically pushed her right
into the arms of the avant -garde. What did it
really mean, though, to join the impressionists,
the independents, the intransigents back then?
It meant turning your back on the salon, on that
central authority. They didn't have like a formal
manifesto, but they shared core ideas. Like painting
outdoors. Right. Plain air painting. And trying
to capture that fleeting impression of a moment
using vibrant color, often in these separate
visible brushstrokes. And Gassot was the only
American officially in the group. The only one.
And she went all in, exhibited in half of their
later shows. immediately started carrying a sketchbook
everywhere, just like them, capturing scenes
on the fly, outdoors, at the theater. And you
see her style change pretty quickly, right? More
spontaneity. Absolutely. More spontaneity, but
also real rigor. She was dedicated to depicting
movement, light, design in this totally modern
way. It put her right up there with the leaders.
There was this critic, Diego Martelli. In 1879,
he actually compared her directly to Degas, said
they both had that modern sense of design and
movement. She wasn't just tagging along. And
that 1879 Impressionist show, that was a big
one for them financially, too. And she and Degas
kind of rose above the criticism. Yeah, it was
their most successful show yet, money -wise.
And yeah, even the really harsh traditional critics
had to admit Degas and Cassatt stood out. There's
this great review from the Revue des Demandes.
What did it say? It basically said, amidst all
the infantile daubing, that's how they saw a
lot of Impressionism. Degas and Cassatt were
the only artists who distinguished themselves.
So she wasn't just participating. She was seen
as a leader. Exactly. She'd arrived. And then
she immediately reinvests in the movement, puts
her money where her mouth is. Totally. Uses her
share of the profits from that show to buy work
by Degas and Monet. Smart move. Very. It showed
she wasn't just an artist in the group. She was
invested, a believer, a patron herself, really.
Now, during all this, her family situation changes,
too. Her parents and sister Lydia actually moved
to Paris in 1877. Right. They come over to live
with her. So she has that family closeness, but
it's alongside this very clear decision she'd
made early on. Marriage, conventional family
life, not compatible with her career. That was
non -negotiable for her. Seems like it. And she's
navigating family pressures, especially money.
Her father insisted her studio, her supplies,
they had to be paid for by her sales. Which weren't
huge at first. Right, pretty meager early on.
That pressure, that need to sell, instead of
discouraging her, it actually became this huge
driver. Pushed her to be professional, rigorous,
focused on producing quality work for exhibitions.
It's kind of ironic. The financial pressure meant
to make her quit maybe actually fueled her success.
You could definitely argue that. We see her really
finding her voice in works from around that time,
like 1878, little girl in a blue armchair with
that impressionist feel. And reading Le Figaro,
that powerful portrait of her mother. Exactly.
She's developing this voice and it's a voice
that's about to make a big impact back across
the Atlantic because we have to talk about her
role in bringing impressionism to America. She
was the key connection, wasn't she? Largely through
her friend, Louisine Elder. Absolutely central.
Louisine married Harry Havemeyer in 1883. Cassatt
immediately becomes their go -to advisor, their
trusted eye. Guiding their collecting. Guiding
them to collect Impressionists on a grand scale.
She'd often secure pieces for them directly from
the artists in Paris. The impact of this, it's
massive. Because that collection ended up...
At the Met. It forms the core of their impressionist
and post -impressionist holdings. So Cassatt
didn't just paint modern art. She literally helped
build the American institutions that would house
it. Incredible. So by the mid -1880s, she's helped
launch a movement in the U .S., but she starts
moving away from the impressionist label herself.
Yeah, around 1886, she shifts. Her style becomes
maybe simpler, more straightforward, as some
critics say. She starts experimenting more, especially
with printmaking. We'll get to that. Okay. And
she explicitly stops identifying with... any
single movement she refused to be boxed in started
exhibiting in new york galleries too cementing
her status beyond just paris so mary cassatt
wasn't just painting the new woman she really
was the new woman this intellectual successful
highly trained artist who made a conscious choice
career over marriage. She totally personified
it. And she was vocal about equality from early
on, like in the 1860s, pushing for equal travel
scholarships for women artists. Right. And much
later, her strong support for women's suffrage
in the 1910s, like contemporaries, artists like
Cecilia Bow, she embodied that independent, socially
active, career -driven identity. But what's really
interesting is how her art reflected this without
being overtly political, like propaganda. Exactly.
That's a subtlety, isn't it? She wasn't painting
protest signs. She painted people, women. But
her portrayal was always respectful, dignified,
suggesting this deeper, meaningful inner life.
Treating their lives, even domestic ones, as
worthy subjects for serious art. Precisely. And
this is where her being a woman gave her this
unique artistic edge. She could redefine that
domestic space. To get high art. Yeah. Male impressionists
were painting the boulevards, the cafes, the
races, the public world. Cassatt had access to
the private world. Where men couldn't easily
go. Right. The daily routines, women's friendships,
quiet moments at home. She could paint these
scenes with an intimacy that a male artist likely
couldn't achieve without seeming like... Well,
like an intruder or a voyeur. But she did tackle
that idea of voyeurism in public spaces, didn't
she? In the Loge. Oh, masterfully. That's from
1878. It shows a woman in an opera box looking
quite absorbed, maybe looking at the stage. But
then you see it. The man across the way? Exactly.
A man in another box staring right at her through
his opera glasses. Cassatt is exposing that dynamic.
How public space, even a fancy opera house, was
a place where women were constantly being watched,
judged, consumed by the male gaze. It flips the
script on the typical passive impressionist female
figure. Totally. Her women are active. They're
active observers with real engagement in their
environments. They're reading, thinking, talking,
or like in the lodge, navigating the complexities
of being seen. It's a world away from, say, Renoir's
lounging beauties. Okay, now we have to talk
about the mother and child theme. because that's
what she becomes most famous for, especially
later in her career. It really dominates her
reputation after 1900, just this huge series
of paintings, prints, incredibly rigorously drawn,
but also so tenderly observed. And they often
echo those Renaissance Madonna and Child paintings,
don't they? They do. There's a kind of classical
reverence she brings to this modern relationship,
but here's the fascinating contradiction. One
we keep coming back to. Yeah. She herself explicitly
chose not to marry or have children. She used
professional models for these paintings. So she's
intensely focused on depicting a bond she consciously
decided not to experience herself. Exactly. And
that distance, that space between her life choices
and the universal truth she's capturing, it's
really interesting to think about. Does it give
her a different perspective? More objective,
maybe? Perhaps. Maybe less sentimental. She could
focus on the essence of that bond, maybe, without
the filter of personal experience clouding it.
It's debatable, but it's a key tension in her
work. And her commitment to her principles, her
feminist ideals, it led to a pretty major public
clash later on involving her family. Right. The
suffrage exhibition in 1915. Her good friend,
Louisine Havemeyer, who was a very committed
feminist. The collector. Right. She organized
this exhibition to support the cause of women's
suffrage. Cassatt contributes 18 pieces, a clear
public political stance. Which did not go down
well with everyone in the family. Not at all.
Her sister -in -law, Eugenie Carter Cassatt,
who lived in Philadelphia society, was staunchly
anti -suffrage. Major conflict. What happened?
Eugenie and a lot of Philly society actually
boycotted the show. Public snub. Wow. And Cassatt's
response? Decisive and very public, too. She
started selling off artworks that she had originally
intended for her heirs. Like, fine, if you don't
support this, you don't get these paintings.
That's bold. Artistic retaliation. Totally. And
it was around then that one of her masterpieces,
The Boating Party from 1893, which some people
think was inspired by Eugenie's daughter, was
bought by the National Gallery in D .C. She chose
her principles over that family legacy. Okay,
let's shift to the big relationship. Cassatt
and Degas, probably one of the most famous and
complex artistic partnerships ever. They were
literally neighbors in Paris. Yeah, studios less
than a five minute walk apart, super close. And
that closeness led to this really intense collaboration
over years. Degas was a mentor figure then. Definitely.
For all his eccentricities, he was frequently
in her studio, giving advice, helping her get
models, which wasn't always easy. And they had
stuff in common beyond art. They did. Both came
from wealthy backgrounds, both studied in Italy,
fiercely independent, neither married, and they
both saw themselves primarily as figure painters,
shared tastes in art, literature. And he was
key in getting her to explore new techniques,
right? Beyond oil painting. Hugely important
there. Especially pastel, which gives you that
amazing immediacy and color vibrancy and printmaking.
Specifically, dry point. Can you just quickly
explain dry point again for our listeners? Sure.
It's an etching technique. But instead of using
acid, the artist scratches directly onto the
copper plate with a sharp needle. This pushes
up a little ridge of metal called a burr. Oh.
And that burr holds ink in a unique way, giving
the printed line this really rich sort of velvety
quality. Magas even lent her his own printing
press. Her drawing skills just soared under his
guidance. And they were experimenting together
constantly. All the time, trying weird materials
like distemper, metallic paints. You see that
in works like Woman Standing Holding a Fan. And
you also see Cassatt using printmaking to reflect
on herself, her status, that dry point reflection
from around 1889. Yes. Many see it as this really
thoughtful self -portrait, capturing the seriousness
she brought to being an artist. And the influence
flowed both ways, right? She was helping him,
too. Oh, absolutely. She was his main connection
to the American market, helped him sell paintings,
talked him up to collectors like the Havemeyers,
crucial for his reputation and income in America.
Degas knew her value. He even did etchings of
her studying art in the Louvre. For that Prince
Journal they were planning. Exactly. That was
meant to be a big collaboration. That collaboration,
while close, was also pretty volatile. That Prince
Journal project. didn't end well. No, it collapsed.
That period, 1879 -80, was probably peak collaboration.
Cassatt was deep into mastering printmaking on
Degas' press, working really hard on prints like
in the opera box for the journal. And then Degas,
who was famously fickle, just abruptly pulled
out. April 1880, the whole project just folded.
Cassatt was furious, understandably, put in all
that work. She learned, I think, that you couldn't
always rely on his fickle and temperamental nature,
despite their deep artistic connection. OK, but
I have to push on this a bit. Cassatt, the ultimate
new woman feminist advocate. How did she square
that with her deep affection for Degas, who was
known for making pretty anti -female remarks?
Was it just pragmatism? That's the million -dollar
question about their relationship, isn't it?
And maybe about Cassatt's whole professional
navigation. We know she'd sometimes repeat his
less pleasant comments almost affectionately,
like his reaction to her painting two women picking
fruit. What did he say? No woman has the right
to draw like that. Wow. Backhanded compliment
much. Totally. It's such a layered dynamic. Some
scholars think, yeah, maybe it was a kind of
defense mechanism. By treating his misogyny as
just eccentricity, she could sort of compartmentalize
it. And keep getting the benefit of his mentorship.
Exactly. Keep accessing his technical genius,
his critical eye, his connections. Maybe it was
a necessary transaction, you know? Protected
by real affection, but still a transaction on
some level. And the one thing that really seemed
to bother her personally was the portrait he
painted of her. Oh, yeah. The oil portrait, Mary
Cassatt seated, holding cards, painted sometime
in the early 1880s. She grew to really, really
hate that painting. Why? We don't know exactly
why, but years later she wrote to her dealer,
Paul Duran Rule, basically saying, don't let
anyone know I posed for this. It's like, she
accepted his artistic input, but she wanted control
over her own image, and his version of her was
one she ultimately rejected, fiercely guarded
her public persona. And we also can't skip over
the big political split that really tested their
friendship later on. The Dreyfus Affair. Yeah,
that tore France apart in the 1890s. And it split
the Impressionist circle, too. Where did they
land? Degas was vehemently anti -Dreyfus, which
kind of aligned with his more conservative, sometimes
anti -Semitic views, sadly. Cassatt, on the other
hand, was firmly pro -Dreyfus, alongside Monet
and Pissarro. That's a huge divide. Massive.
A fundamental clash of values. But somehow, despite
that chasm, they managed to keep the friendship
going, continue to visit each other until Degas
died in 1917. though apparently the relationship
became much more focused on the business side
of art, the commercial aspect, from the 1890s
onward. Okay, so moving into the 1890s, this
seems to be Cassatt's absolute peak period. She's
not the student anymore, she's the master, taking
on a mentor role herself. Yeah, her influence
really broadens. She becomes more diplomatic,
apparently, and starts advising younger American
artists like Lucy A. Bacon. And this decade also
brings what many consider her truly most original
contribution. The color prints. Those groundbreaking
color drypoint and acquaintance prints she exhibited
in 1891. Just stunning. And this is where that
Japonism influence really comes through strongly.
These Japanese woodblock prints everyone was
talking about. Absolutely. She saw that big show
of Japanese masters in Paris in 1890 and was
just captivated. Adapted that aesthetic brilliantly.
How so? What did she take from it? The simplicity,
the clarity of the design, those strong, clean
outlines defining flat areas of color. And technically,
she achieved those flat color areas using aquatint.
Which is different from dry point. Yeah, aquatint
is another etching variation. It lets you create
tones, sort of like watercolor washes, these
beautiful flat blocks of delicate color. It was
a huge departure from those feathery impressionist
strokes. And she deliberately avoided using black
outlines, preferring lighter colors. It's like
she fused impressionist color sense with the
bold graphic design of Japanese prints. That's
a perfect way to put it. Art experts consistently
say these prints, like Woman Bathing, the Coiffure,
they're her most original work. Technically,
maybe never surpassed in color printmaking. She
wasn't just following trends. She was innovating
at the highest level. And this creative peak
leads to... potentially her biggest public project,
that huge mural for the Chicago World's Fair
in 1893. The World's Columbian Exposition? Yeah,
it should have been her crowning achievement,
commissioned by the Chicago socialite Bertha
Palmer for the women's building. Massive scale,
right? Huge. 12 feet high, 58 feet long. The
theme was modern woman. It was basically Cassatt
laying out her whole philosophy on a giant canvas.
What exactly did it depict? What was the message?
It was designed as a triptych, three panels celebrating
women's independence from men. The center panel
was called Young Women Plucking the Fruits of
Knowledge or Science. Love that. Right. And the
side panels were young girls pursuing fame and
arts, music, dancing. It was all about women
striving, achieving, creating completely on their
own terms. Radical statement for 1893. We can't
see it today. It's lost, isn't it? Tragically,
yes. It's a massive loss for art history. After
the fair closed, Bertha Palmer took possession
of it. But after Palmer died in 1918, the mural
just disappeared. No one knows where. No idea.
Probably destroyed, maybe just lost in storage
somewhere. But even just knowing about it tells
you so much about her commitment to female independence.
So as the 1900s begin, her role shifts again,
more towards influencing institutions. Yeah,
she becomes this quiet powerhouse behind the
scenes, still advising major American collectors.
And crucially, she kept insisting that they eventually
donate their purchases to American museums. Securing
the land. legacy. Exactly. Ensuring Impressionism
had a permanent public home in the U .S. Her
contribution was as much about curation and legacy
building as it was about her own painting by
then. Did she get recognition in her lifetime?
awards and things? She did, though maybe slower
in the U .S. than in France. France gave her
the Légion d 'Honneur in 1904, which is a huge
deal. Yeah. Apparently, recognition in the U
.S. was a bit slower. She was often overshadowed
by her very famous brother, Alexander Cassatt,
the railroad president, until he died in 1906.
And then, around 1910, things start to decline,
physically and maybe creatively. Seems so. There
was a trip to Egypt in 1910. The ancient art
there just overwhelmed her, made her feel inadequate,
almost. Yeah, she said she felt crushed by the
strength of this art and despaired asking how
are my feeble hands to ever paint the effect
on me after that her work is often described
as becoming less innovative ironically maybe
more sentimental which she'd always avoided and
then her health starts to fail yeah pretty soon
after that by 1911 she's diagnosed with a whole
list of things diabetes rheumatism neuralgia
And the worst for an artist, cataracts. Oh no,
her eyesight. Exactly. She kept painting for
a few more years, but by 1914 she was nearly
blind, forced to stop painting altogether. Devastating.
Truly. She died in 1926 at her country place
near Paris and was buried there in the family
vault. But what a legacy she left. National Women's
Hall of Fame, her paintings selling for millions,
those postage stamps featuring her work. Yeah,
the boating party on one, then the Great American
Series, the American Treasure Series with the
mother and child paintings, even a WWII Liberty
ship named after her, and a garden in Paris.
She really stands as this monument, doesn't she?
To defiance, incredible skill, and that fierce
professional independence. An American woman
who conquered the toughest art scene in the world
and helped define modern art. Hashtag O -T -E
-T -R -O. Synthesis and final thought. So let's
try to wrap this up. When you boil down Mary
Kasach's incredible life and career, what are
the absolute key takeaways for us? I think there
are three main things. First, just her essential
role in basically forging a professional path
for... Women artists by defying the salon, by
proving a woman could reach the absolute highest
levels of skill and critical acclaim purely on
her own terms. Yeah, definitely. Number one.
And second, her critical contribution to impressionism
itself, not just as an artist who could absolutely
hold her own with Degas, Monet, Pissarro. Right.
But as that key figure, that evangelist who strategically
made sure the movement got collected, got respected
and got into American museums, ensuring its future.
And third, I'd say, is her revolutionary focus
artistically on the dignity, the inner life,
the intimate reality of women, the ultimate visual
chronicler of that new woman elevating the domestic,
showing women as active subjects, not just passive
objects. Couldn't agree more. And her whole journey,
it's such a powerful lesson, isn't it? For anyone
in any field, really, it shows that sometimes
reaching that highest level of achievement means
you have to make a break. A complete separation
from conventional expectations, whether that's
family pressure, the academic establishment,
maybe even the difficult aspects of a brilliant
mentor like Degas. Challenging authority was
key. So connecting this back to you, our listener,
and that final thought. Yeah. Cassatt famously
decided marriage and motherhood wouldn't work
with her career. It was an explicit choice. Right.
Yet her most famous, most resonant, most tender
works are those very paintings and prints of
the mother and child bond. Subjects she depicted
with this incredible rigor and universal truth,
but never lived herself. Yeah. Which leads to
that final question to shoo on. Did that independence,
that deliberate distance she maintained from
being a wife or mother herself. Did that actually
give her the perspective she needed? The clear
-eyed focus. Exactly. The critical distance required
to see and depict the universal emotional truth
of that maternal bond so perfectly, without maybe
the complications or sentimentality of personal
experience. Did rejecting the role in a way enable
her to render it so masterfully? Something to
think about next time you're lucky enough to
stand in front of a Cassatt.